PC: Prevent the Insurrection of 10 August 1792

With no PoDs prior to October 1791 (the meeting of the Legislative Assembly), is it possible for the Parisian violence of late 1792 -- the noted insurrection, the September Massacres, etc -- to be prevented? If so, how? And what would be the effects of this (and the given PoD)?
 
I am not sure how you could prevent the insurrection, however, if it did not happen it would have some massive impacts. Historically, Lafayette, being a talented, proven commander and liberal, was given charge of the soldiers who were raised to restore law and order. This command made Lafayette the second or third most powerful individual in France, however, it prevented him from having as big of a presence as he could have had in the legislature. That lack of strong presence from Lafayette was a major contributing factor in the eventual decline of the constitutionalists and rise of the Jacobins. Had Lafayette been in the assembly rather than the streets it is probable he would have managed to conclude a successful, moderate, and peaceful reform of France.
 
I am not sure how you could prevent the insurrection, however, if it did not happen it would have some massive impacts. Historically, Lafayette, being a talented, proven commander and liberal, was given charge of the soldiers who were raised to restore law and order. This command made Lafayette the second or third most powerful individual in France, however, it prevented him from having as big of a presence as he could have had in the legislature. That lack of strong presence from Lafayette was a major contributing factor in the eventual decline of the constitutionalists and rise of the Jacobins. Had Lafayette been in the assembly rather than the streets it is probable he would have managed to conclude a successful, moderate, and peaceful reform of France.
So do we get a constitutional monarchy in France?
 
So do we get a constitutional monarchy in France?
Without the arrest or deposition of Louis, I expect that would be the result. The more pressing matter, though, is what this means for the war with Austria and Prussia; for example, without the execution of the king, we're unlikely to see other powers (Britain, Netherlands, etc) dog-piling into the coalition.
 
So do we get a constitutional monarchy in France?

Possibly, so long as Lafayette reigns in on Louis.

Without the arrest or deposition of Louis, I expect that would be the result. The more pressing matter, though, is what this means for the war with Austria and Prussia; for example, without the execution of the king, we're unlikely to see other powers (Britain, Netherlands, etc) dog-piling into the coalition.

The war had yet to be declared so it may just not happen.
 
With no PoDs prior to October 1791 (the meeting of the Legislative Assembly), is it possible for the Parisian violence of late 1792 -- the noted insurrection, the September Massacres, etc -- to be prevented? If so, how? And what would be the effects of this (and the given PoD)?

There is an absolute condition : no previous decalaration of war in the spring of 1792. War was what pushed the political conflict in France to meltdown point.

And October 1791 is too late. Louis XVI had already lost what was left of his credibility and authority with his failed flight to Varennes.

Now if you take these co dotions into account. You have many possibilities.

As long as he remained popular, Louis XVI could have have turned the tables if he had had the guts instead of being spineless.

As young Napoleon said : a good shooting would have avoided all this terrible mess. And he knew what he talked about. That's what he did a few years later, in 1795, and that propelled his career to the top.
 
There is an absolute condition : no previous decalaration of war in the spring of 1792. War was what pushed the political conflict in France to meltdown point.

And October 1791 is too late. Louis XVI had already lost what was left of his credibility and authority with his failed flight to Varennes.
So you're saying that by the time the Legislative Assembly met, Louis had already lost his credibility and the breakout of war with Austria was a foregone conclusion, two things that would simply have to be changed if there's any plausible hope of preventing the overthrow of the king; thus, the OP is not possible with the given parameters. Do I have that right?

Well, then considering there's already a fine Varennes thread up, I'd consider that asked and answered.
 
So you're saying that by the time the Legislative Assembly met, Louis had already lost his credibility and the breakout of war with Austria was a foregone conclusion, two things that would simply have to be changed if there's any plausible hope of preventing the overthrow of the king; thus, the OP is not possible with the given parameters. Do I have that right?

Well, then considering there's already a fine Varennes thread up, I'd consider that asked and answered.

Not exactly. The war was not certain. But once declared, it took 10 years to end it (not to say 23 years).
 
Not exactly. The war was not certain. But once declared, it took 10 years to end it...
TBF, that was in no small measure due to a series of escalation moves on the part of France (starting with the regicide, later to include the Egypt expedition, etc), which would certainly be avoided if the OP is met. The question (or at least a question) is, once the assembly of OTL is elected, is there any way of preventing the war?
 
There is an absolute condition : no previous decalaration of war in the spring of 1792. War was what pushed the political conflict in France to meltdown point.

And October 1791 is too late. Louis XVI had already lost what was left of his credibility and authority with his failed flight to Varennes.

Now if you take these co dotions into account. You have many possibilities.

As long as he remained popular, Louis XVI could have have turned the tables if he had had the guts instead of being spineless.

As young Napoleon said : a good shooting would have avoided all this terrible mess. And he knew what he talked about. That's what he did a few years later, in 1795, and that propelled his career to the top.

Unfortunately, Louis' way of thinking was too mechanical for this. He reasoned that Charles I had lost his head BECAUSE he waged war on his people, so IF I don't, I'm safe. So, while a good whiff of grapeshot would've severely simplified matters, it would require Louis to undergo a drastic character change.
 
As long as he remained popular, Louis XVI could have have turned the tables if he had had the guts instead of being spineless.

As young Napoleon said : a good shooting would have avoided all this terrible mess. And he knew what he talked about. That's what he did a few years later, in 1795, and that propelled his career to the top.
Unfortunately, Louis' way of thinking was too mechanical for this. He reasoned that Charles I had lost his head BECAUSE he waged war on his people, so IF I don't, I'm safe. So, while a good whiff of grapeshot would've severely simplified matters, it would require Louis to undergo a drastic character change.
I will say, the idea of Louis avoiding his overthrow by having troops fire at unruly citizens hadn't occurred to me -- but that would be, in no small measure, because I don't think that was really much of an option by 1792, when the troops with greater loyalty to the National Assembly and the Revolution were effectively the forces keeping peace in Paris and the armed forces of France.

For that matter, as I was reading up on the Revolution recently, there were no points where I think one might reasonably suppose "if the forces loyal to the king [assuming there were such forces] had only shot into the mob or opposing force of French, this escalation of the Revolution could have been avoided", much less ended the revolution altogether; maybe, maybe you could make the case that this would have worked in 1789, when it was just the Estates General or the king was still at Versailles, but even if that's the case, it's neither here nor there concerning the OP.

As to Napoleon's part in putting down a royalist uprising in 1795, that was part and parcel of a larger failed effort by the royalists (including the defeat of an invasion months earlier); it did get the Corsican noticed by the government, which is how he got the command in Italy, but that was only the first step in a rise to power with subsequent steps that were... well, contingent to say the least.
 
There were several elite units that were staunchly loyal to the king, such as the regiment of Flanders.

The problem was Louis XVI who did not support his supporters and order them not to act, not to defend him and handed its officers to the revolutionary power.

Best way to lose any support.

By contrast, when general Bonaparte staged his coup, began messing it up at the meeting of the council of 500 (one of the 2 legislative assemblies of the Directorate regime) and was about to be declared outlaw, he sent loyal troops commanded by his brother in law Murat, and dismissed the assembly.

Murat then famously said to his troops something like : "chuck them out".

That's the difference between losing a crown that had been held by your ancestors for almost a millenium and gaining monarchical powers when one is but an upstart whose parents were both born not being french.
 
Top